nworks_setup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and succeeds well. It discloses security-sensitive behavior (Client Secret read from env var, not parameters), state mutation (saves configuration), external dependencies (environment variables), failure modes, and the OAuth redirect URI. Minor gap: could mention idempotency or whether calling twice overwrites previous config.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Excellent structure with clear visual sections (■ 사전 준비, ■ 이 tool의 역할, ■ 설정 후 다음 단계). Despite length, every sentence serves a purpose: prerequisites, security constraints, failure handling, and sibling tool references. Well front-loaded with the core purpose statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a setup tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, security constraints, failure scenarios, OAuth details, and post-setup workflow. No gaps identified for this tool type.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema has 100% coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable context: security rationale for excluding Client Secret from params, format example for serviceAccount ('xxxxx.serviceaccount@domain'), and functional grouping (clientId required vs optional serviceAccount/botId/domainId). It explains the 'why' behind the parameter design.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states it 'sets up NAVER WORKS API authentication information' and distinguishes itself from nworks_login_user by clarifying that this tool only stores configuration while login_user handles browser authentication for specific features. It clearly identifies the specific resource (API credentials) and action (configure/store).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Exceptional guidance with explicit prerequisites (developer console setup, env variable configuration), clear failure conditions ('fails if NWORKS_CLIENT_SECRET env var is missing'), and specific next-step routing (use nworks_login_user for calendar/mail vs Service Account for messages). It explicitly names sibling tools and when to use each authentication flow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.